In ref to both @oendertuerk and @hartnell, before venturing towards an ultimate truth, it needs to be precisely worded - reminds me of the computer in Hitchhiker's Guide. So, if all we experience is our mind, is there any state of mind that is universal, something we can all agree upon? This is not dissimilar to Descartes' meditation, although the answer is different.

There is a state of pure awareness (or consciousness) devoid of any other experience. It is the ground state of consciousness. We don't usually notice it as our attention tends to focus on the phenomena generated by the mind, be they deemed external or internal (the mind doesn't seem to care). It has various names, depending on the language of the texts, but the definitions show such words to be synonyms, and hence the experiences to be the same.

How can one experience a kind of stateless state? What is interesting is that the state has no phenomena that one can point to, and yet the memory of the state remains - it is not a memory-less sleep, it is a conscious state. Indeed, if I was more skillful, and diligent, I should be able to extend such periods of consciousness - so-called sleep yoga claims to have techniques to achieve this.

When one comes out of the pure state, there is an admixture of our standard conscious mental activity with the ground state still present. Mental activities appear with a certain detachment. Without practice, the ground state fades back into the background, yet can be accessed - and it will always be the same state.

@oendertwat (one good misspelling deserves another. :) )

> wow... first of all, thank you for taking the time to write such a detailed comment and also for trying to answer some of my questions according to your point of view.

It's twat I do. You're welcome.

> Well, your answers have made me wonder how you feel about the whole thing and I respect that you view a person's consciousness as a sequence and product of experience, of the brain.

Maybe I totally mucked it up, but that's not at all what I was saying. 

My point was that experience (not consciousness) is a product of brain function. Is that clearer? The hard problem of consciousness isn't well named. It's precisely the hard problem of experience.

To summarize:

1. We have experience.
2. WTF?!?

Note the lack of the word "consciousness" in that summary. To be fair I think I did use the word "consciousness" out of convenience. 

> I know many who think that way. But personally I see it differently.

I honestly don't care how someone "sees" it (unless it's a personal issue.)  I'm a pragmatist, so I kinda stick to the domain of demonstration and doing what works.

> And yes, I know the attempts to measure human brainwaves and to reproduce them both visually and audioally. 

That's not at all what said researchers are doing. 

> But what the program shows at the end is how the programmer sees things.

There's no "programmer" who decides what is seen in this case. Instead, machine learning is used to decode the brainwaves.  At any rate, what's going on is like listening to the circuitry of a television to determine the picture that's being displayed on the TV.  

> My brainwaves will show the red what the programmer has programmed into the program as red. And so it is with many other things.

Actually, the color red is generated in an opponent process with the color green (cyan, really). It's hardwired into us as much as breathing. It exists both because of this process and because it's hardwired.  You can experience this yourself by fatiguing one side or the other of the opponent process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opponent-process_theory

Don't take my word for it! See it for yourself!
http://www.animations.physics.unsw.edu.au/jw/light/complementary-colours.htm

Here is a really wild example of fatiguing an opponent process at work (I know it says "hypnotize yourself" but that's not really what's going on.): 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBVn__SdJZY


Variations can exist in individual perception of colors, but not due to some "mystery of individual consciousness." This is well known and as I sarcastically pointed out, easy to test for. I'm sure you've seen these.

![](https://cdn.steemitimages.com/DQmU4FExpcwAC1BLb4nZeWDBkckZiVdLHzz5mKZkEVQ4LKy/image.png)

> Which red is the truth now? Yours or mine? Does there even exist a red with a truth? It's the same with views and opinions. Which one of us is right? You with your opinion or I with mine? You see a 9 and think it's right and maybe the truth for you and I see a 6 and I think it's right for me and maybe its my truth.
> You try to convince me of your opinion (your view = your truth = your reality) and I try to convince you of mine. (my view = my reality = my truth)

> But I think that there is no ultimate truth. There are only views and everything is built on them ;)

No offense, but this can only come directly from the armchair. I'm not trying to convince you of "my opinion." The idea of some "ultimate truth" doesn't even register on my radar as anything worth considering.

I am describing things that can be directly demonstrated. From my first comment:

>  If your brain no process, you no experience. If your brain processes differently than it did a minute ago (say, with the help of some psychoactive substances or a really solid kick to the head), then your experience also changes.

> Hell, **you can verify this yourself** without any drugs, swift kick, or special equipment. Just hold your breath until your brain is starved of oxygen enough that it can't process normally and stars will begin to appear.